Disposed

The Mysore Diocesan Society v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2024WP/21350/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner educational institutions challenged property tax demands, claiming exemption under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The Court disposed of the petition reserving liberty to file a response to the demand and directed the Municipal Corporation to consider the claim before taking precipitative action.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to file response to demand notices within 4 weeks; second respondent directed to consider and not take precipitative action.

The Mysore Diocesan Society Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52591 WP No. 21350 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21350 OF 2021 (LB-TAX)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE MYSORE DIOCESAN SOCIETY BISHOPS HOUSE NO 2939 MOTHER TERESSA ROAD LASHKAR MOHALLA MYSORE - 570001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FATHER JAMES DOMINIC.

¶7

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

ST BRIDGES CONVENT NACHENAHALLY PALYA J P NAGAR MYSORE - 570031 REPRESENTED BY PRINICIPAL SISTER NANCY.

¶9

MARY SALIAN SOCIETY ST MARY'S CONVENT CHAMUNDIPURAM MYSORE - 570008 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY RATHNA MARY.

¶10

THE CATHEDRAL PARISH SOCIETY ST PHILOMINA CATHEDRAL CHURCH ROAD MYSORE - 570001

¶11

¶12

NC: 2024:KHC:52591 WP No. 21350 of 2021

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY STANEY D ALMEDA.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE FOR P1, P3 AND P4 ; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.2024, PETITION IN RESPECT OF P2 STANDS DISMISSED)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶18

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001.

¶19

CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MYSORE CITY MYSORE - 570019 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HEMANTH P, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEING PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, WHICH ARE FALLING WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION OF CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MYSORE, ARE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY TAX AS PROVIDED U/S 110(1)(c), (e) AND (i) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1976.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:52591 WP No. 21350 of 2021

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are Educational Institutions, and they are aggrieved by the respective demand for payment of property tax. If the petitioners contend that because they are Educational Institutions, they are exempted from paying property tax, on behalf of the respondents, it is asserted that not every Educational Institution will be exempted from payment of property tax under the provisions of Section 110[1][i][b] of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the concerned must establish requisites in this regard.

¶29

Sri Sangamesh R B, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this petition could indeed be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file their response to the demand directing the respondents to consider the same in the light of the provisions as

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:52591 WP No. 21350 of 2021

¶32

aforesaid and with liberty to the petitioners to pursue cause, if there is any, after such consideration. In fact, the learned counsel submits that in similar circumstances, in the writ petition in W.P. No.2733/2022, this Court, by order dated 11.03.2024, has disposed of the petition with liberty to the concerned to file objections along with the documents directing the concerned to examine the same in accordance with law while directing not to take precipitative action.

¶33

Sri Hemanth P, the learned counsel who appears for Smt. M P Geethadevi, is heard in the light of the afore submissions, and on perusal of the records including the order of this Court in W.P. No.2733/2022. The demand notices against the petitioners are produced as Annexure-C series, and the second respondent must examine whether the petitioners should be exempted from paying property tax, and that until this aspect is considered, there

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:52591 WP No. 21350 of 2021

¶36

cannot be justified demands. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

[a] The petition stands disposed of reserving

¶39

liberty to the petitioners to file, within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, response to the respective demand notices directing the second respondent to consider the same and proceed in accordance with law.

¶40

[b] The second respondent is directed not to take any precipitative action if the petitioners file response as now enabled until the same is considered.

¶41

Sd/ -

¶42

(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶43

AN/-

The Mysore Diocesan Society v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Mysore Diocesan Society v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Ashwini Vs State of Karnataka

Sacred Heart Degree College for Women Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. B. N. Venkatesh Vs the Chief Commissioner

Zuari World India Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Anjulamma Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. P R Radhakrishna Vs the Chief Commissioner